The most ancient texts on cosmology are atheistic, they never mention anything about a universal God, anywhere. The ancient statements on the nature of the universe are matching the best of advanced science on the subject. These were not religious texts in the contemporary sense. They are logic based texts.

The texts state nothing about anything to do with a universal "god" they mentioned that existence is the dual principal which is one principal of energy and consciousness. That everything in existence is vibration and this vibration is consciousness or intelligence and this forms into energetic templates that form all the archetypes of physical creation. These templates arise from the dimension of space the most subtle dimension and materialize into what we call matter. And that as known today matter is the vibration of light that forms across a range of different atoms and particles that manifest existence. And that according to the rates of vibration and the mixture of vibrational temples of the elements govern its properties of manifestation.

They mention that the laws of "nature" are not such as we would perceive them today in the older established sense. They mention the laws of science that of knowledge are the laws of energy and the principals that govern how energy functions, that includes the function of matter which is energy in motion. Which is the properties of manifestation.

The people who claim this is some type of "god" are wrong. Some people have a Samadhi type experience when the mundane mind disappears and the mind expands drastically and picks up on a higher wave of existence that has always been there. That is not evidence of "god" that is just tuning into the higher energetic waves, its the same principal as a stronger bandwidth. This is the result of the psychic centers in ones own mind opening up.

The other claim of that because existence has a common substance energetically that everything evolves from, that the archetypes of existence manifest from the subtle ether, that this strange reductionism is required to use this to prove there is a universal "god" the ancients never stated such. They were dealing with templates and subtle energies. This reductionism is a reality denial of the complex structuralism that is the nature of existence and the many different archetypes that form it. And that each is its own consciousness template that manifests a wide variety of nothing but a diversity of forms, life and being in this universe. This is why upon basic examination the "All is one" is an empty motto. Life is diverse and if you examine its flow and properties this diversity supports the needed ecosystem of life. Note the purpose of existence is obvious, its that life becomes more diverse within its own being as it evolves into new and more sophisticated forms of its own individual archetype, this is the expansion of energy, just as the plan of the archetype of the tree is in the seed. Its not regressing back to the formless nothing. The attempt to create a "god" out this reductionism is backwards and false.

The other is the attempt to project a human ego onto creation which is the trick of Christianity and such programs. This one can be difficult for people to deprogram from as its based on the most simple form of projection and the false arguments the Christians give to promote it show such. "This painting had a painter, therefore MUH GOD!" which is what all the creationist arguments account for.

The other fact is the universe is now known to have no bringing and no end, the ancient texts also mention this. This gets into the concepts of what is time and its connection to vibration of the elements of existence. This once again is hard for humans to understand due to our limited range of psychic expansion and scientific knowledge.

The fact is everything is energy and energy is a universal, independent, intelligent, self creating, organizing and generating force. That is what the ancient texts state and what science has been finding out. Its not the property of a man in the sky sitting on a throne, who created the entire universe and all its mind bending factors... so he could watch you go to the bathroom, as he hovers over you all day and night long.

As I have related many times before, nature thrives of differentiation, and not on returning into the "aether" and non creation. The more differentiation, the better.

People can put 1+1 together on this aspect and understand that the "One God" is only a jewish deception to universalize and control everything for their own demented benefits.

"God" is a cheap way of stating Godhead, in which Godhead is only a state of consciousness for man. It's really that simple.

Numerous subjects I have written on this to simplify it and this is also a post here that explains this simply. The enemy creates endless complexity on these subjects to drive people insane and then they just say "oh 1 god is a kike on the clouds, believe it, that's it".

HP Mageson666 wrote:The other fact is the universe is now known to have no beginning and no end, the ancient texts also mention this.

This has always fascinated and confused me. I can't believe that existence appeared suddenly from nothing and the fact we are talking means at least something does exist so the best I can manage is that there was always a universe. Unfortunately I feel like the human mind is incapable of processing the greater reality and hope one day Satan can enlighten me.

HP Mageson666 wrote:The other fact is the universe is now known to have no beginning and no end, the ancient texts also mention this.

This has always fascinated and confused me. I can't believe that existence appeared suddenly from nothing and the fact we are talking means at least something does exist so the best I can manage is that there was always a universe. Unfortunately I feel like the human mind is incapable of processing the greater reality and hope one day Satan can enlighten me.

If life has a .0000001% chance of happening in a infinite universe, then that guarantees life. Because .0000001% of infinity is infinity.

At least this is my BASIC understanding of how organic life came into being.

HP Mageson666 wrote:The other fact is the universe is now known to have no beginning and no end, the ancient texts also mention this.

This has always fascinated and confused me. I can't believe that existence appeared suddenly from nothing and the fact we are talking means at least something does exist so the best I can manage is that there was always a universe. Unfortunately I feel like the human mind is incapable of processing the greater reality and hope one day Satan can enlighten me.

I think there is no other way to say this. Because if we give a beginning to the universe then how or who created it? And then who created the one that created the universe? And so on to the infinity. It's just makes sense that it always existed, that is infinite and will always exist.

I get that is a bit complicated to understand but there is no other way to explain this.

HP Mageson666 wrote:The other fact is the universe is now known to have no beginning and no end, the ancient texts also mention this.

This has always fascinated and confused me. I can't believe that existence appeared suddenly from nothing and the fact we are talking means at least something does exist so the best I can manage is that there was always a universe. Unfortunately I feel like the human mind is incapable of processing the greater reality and hope one day Satan can enlighten me.

I think there is no other way to say this. Because if we give a beginning to the universe then how or who created it? And then who created the one that created the universe? And so on to the infinity. It's just makes sense that it always existed, that is infinite and will always exist.

I get that is a bit complicated to understand but there is no other way to explain this.

The most ancient texts on cosmology are atheistic, they never mention anything about a universal God, anywhere. The ancient statements on the nature of the universe are matching the best of advanced science on the subject. These were not religious texts in the contemporary sense. They are logic based texts.

This is to a level that anyone who has heard of ancient mythology like Greek mythology basically already knows it is not too far off from a somewhat sensible hypothesis for the origin of the universe. That is, you see mythological stories saying the universe originated in Chaos without form(which obviously, nobody created), and grew much more complicated and ordered after that with diverse entities, and compare that to the BS that the Xians produce. "The universe is so complex and integrated and beautiful so GAWDUNIT...And GAWD is eternal and don't question this, he had a perfect and Omniscient mind for all time, without having even Neurons, let alone a Brain...But how dare you question GAWD's Origin! Burn in hell atheist!" When if there is a basic principle of growth in the universe then that could account for the origin of intelligence and everything else, it started out from something less complex that was guided by the same underlying principle. Even from an Atheist point of view, if you look at the creation story of Greek Mythology, it looks like it starts from a somewhat rational guess on how the Universe could have originated, whether or not any of the rest makes sense. The same problem exists in Christianity except the attempt to search for the origin is expressly declared off limits. While if someone asks what happens if you continually trace back some inherent principle of growth in the universe further and further, and what was the origin of it, and if the origin was an even more fundamental principle, they would just honestly say they aren't sure but they would like to find out. Rather than "DIE HERETIC!".

HP Mageson666 wrote:The other claim of that because existence has a common substance energetically that everything evolves from, that the archetypes of existence manifest from the subtle ether, that this strange reductionism is required to use this to prove there is a universal "god" the ancients never stated such. They were dealing with templates and subtle energies. This reductionism is a reality denial of the complex structuralism that is the nature of existence and the many different archetypes that form it. And that each is its own consciousness template that manifests a wide variety of nothing but a diversity of forms, life and being in this universe. This is why upon basic examination the "All is one" is an empty motto. Life is diverse and if you examine its flow and properties this diversity supports the needed ecosystem of life. Note the purpose of existence is obvious, its that life becomes more diverse within its own being as it evolves into new and more sophisticated forms of its own individual archetype, this is the expansion of energy, just as the plan of the archetype of the tree is in the seed. Its not regressing back to the formless nothing. The attempt to create a "god" out this reductionism is backwards and false.

The other is the attempt to project a human ego onto creation which is the trick of Christianity and such programs. This one can be difficult for people to deprogram from as its based on the most simple form of projection and the false arguments the Christians give to promote it show such. "This painting had a painter, therefore MUH GOD!" which is what all the creationist arguments account for.

The other fact is the universe is now known to have no bringing and no end, the ancient texts also mention this. This gets into the concepts of what is time and its connection to vibration of the elements of existence. This once again is hard for humans to understand due to our limited range of psychic expansion and scientific knowledge.

The fact is everything is energy and energy is a universal, independent, intelligent, self creating, organizing and generating force. That is what the ancient texts state and what science has been finding out. Its not the property of a man in the sky sitting on a throne, who created the entire universe and all its mind bending factors... so he could watch you go to the bathroom, as he hovers over you all day and night long.

Something else to mention is that the Big Bang theory makes no sense. Many people do not realize there is something called the Cosmological Constant which is a giant error of how far off our observational data is from what the Big Bang Theory dictates. As far as I remember, this is the ridiculous amount of negative pressure that would have been required to 'Stop the Big Bang from Banging'. Here is Wikipedia's explanation of it, which seems to be consistent with what I am saying:The amount of energy predicted by all the theories is infinitely higher than the amount we actually observe.

Wikipedia wrote:The discrepancy between theorized vacuum energy from QFT and observed vacuum energy from cosmology is a source of major contention, with the values predicted exceeding observation by some 120 orders of magnitude, a discrepancy that has been called "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics!".[8] This issue is called the cosmological constant problem and it is one of the greatest unsolved mysteries in science with many physicists believing that "the vacuum holds the key to a full understanding of nature".[9]

I am pretty sure the reason the theory exceeds observation by an absurd number of orders of magnitude, in other words, trillions of trillions of trillions of times higher(actually infinitely more) than what is actually seen, is because the Theory-predicted amount would be what happened if you drew the initial expansion spike of the big bang graph out infinitely rather than stopping it with a screeching halt. And the reason they stopped it like that, I would guess was because the data showed far more gradual expansion than they expected, which was undeniable at a certain point, so they fudge the data at the start of it to try to make it fit the theory, or just make it up, while letting the rest of the data sit since it's undeniable.

To explain this better, look at the graph for the big bang model of the history of the universe. You see a massive spike of growth at the start which suddenly comes to a screeching halt, only to incredibly slowly grow afterwards. Scientists have basically no explanation for how there could be such a massive stop to an unending exponential "Big Bang" expansion of space. Here is a graph of the big bang:

Also, those two lines at the start are 1000s of times an under-representation of just how extreme the growth supposedly was at the start, due to limits of a graph that humans can look at. Normally they would extend 1000s of times higher before suddenly flattening out in an instant. Try imagining just how big the universe would be according to big bang theorists if this initial expansion went on forever, or if the initial spike very gradually slowed down due to entropy rather than coming to a screeching halt for no explainable reason. It's ridiculous.

Even if the Big Bang theorists are right that due to redshift the entire observable universe seems to come from a single point, that does not mean the rest of the universe came from a single point, or that space and time only existed there, or that the one point necessarily exploded in an instant. It could be that the limits of our observation only go so far and this is just one of endless areas of space that are unfolding from different points throughout an endless universe that continues to grow. That seems much more rational than a sudden explosion without cause which comes to a screeching halt for no explainable reason. I am not going to claim to be a scientist who has direct knowledge of the facts here, but that does seem like a huge hole in the big bang theory. It's far better than "Gawdunit", but it still seems problematic.

I was right, more or less, when I said about different patterns and forms of energy being compressed and compacted into different types of matter, depending on the pattern/formation, plus other influences and factors. Yay, lol.

So basically, "god" exists from a false-simplifying of actual concepts and things, so as to avoid proper explanations, and to insert "god" as being "everything/originator". We're not "allowed" to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, because now "priests" can rape Children at their leisure and pleasure, and we can't know what's what. Being dumbed-down, stupefied, "god" is the nonsense "answer", false-answer, as to what's what.

The jew stupefied us from 10 000 000 down to about 100, but then we crawled back up to about 1000 (today), all the while the jew is at about 5000-10 000 (throughout history). While some idiots are at about 100, this "god" thing is alleged to be at about maybe 150-250, and "faith, faith, faith" is used, instead of think, think, think. Hail Satan coming to adam and eve, telling them, Oh, please use your Brain! "Forbidden fruit!" Pfft! Knowing that you're naked means you are ashamed. "god" (the jew) is saying that knowledge is disgusting, because it upsets you and makes you feel depressed. That's why everything is so fucking complex and complicated - red tape and bullshit "science" and jumping through hoops/going through "proper channels", to get anywhere... Instead, you can just be an ignorant idiot airhead and lol at things you don't understand, shrug them off, and be a shallow and materialistic individual. It's also supposed to be that more clever/intelligent individuals are more depressed than idiots. The higher-braining person notices and understands more things and wants to fix the World but feels so overwhelmed, whereas the idiot is more sedate and slavely.

I might have missed it but is there anything, a sermon or sound reasoning, regarding life from inanimate matter - RNA, DNA; abiogenesis? Did I also miss a thread/sermon/sound reasoning regarding "time"? At this point, I have to be stubborn that "time" is just a concept of governance, so we can know how and when to repeat things - repetition is key for creating things; e.g. see musical amplifiers which 'bounce' sound back and forth inside them, which increases its volume/sound projection; repeating Words of Power and Mantras/Affirmations is vital. The frequency of interval, for repeating things, has been goverened by 'time', so we can know when and how often and for how long we need to do things to be able to create things; this is our own tuning-in to the Vibrational Aether Field. I suspect strongly that we could notice (if we haven't already) different forms of vibrations (CMBR...) and we could ride these torrents, these rapids, these currents, so as to know how, when, how much and for how long we need to vibrate things.

We've managed to figure some of this out, and it is what we call and consider "every day" and "for 40 days" without a break/miss. Consider different wavelengths of frequency things - shorter ones are shallow and quick; longer ones are deep and slow... Different energies (Sanskrit Words, Runes...) are these, and each can be fixed, like Lego bricks, into the waves/frequencies of the Universe/Vibrational Aether Field, and we can build more Lego bricks upon this to create something; hence, the reason for certain RtRs needing to be done first before moving onto others, then the Final RtR; foundations must be made first; we just call this "time", and for those who have limited understanding, we had to use Physical things (Planets/Stars/Satellites) to help us record this and remind us, so we can know to vibrate necessary things. Once we reach certain heights, we can no-longer rely on this governance which we call "time"; surely a God/Goddess could begin a thing during a Void of Moon Course (or any particular equivalent on any other Planet) deliberately, or without regard to the Void Course of the Moon, and it would still have the desired effect/s.

"Time and space" "bends", "is warped" by/when near a star or a black hole, and you on Earth progress at a very different pace of time than me travelling at nearly the speed of light, that gravity or height (altitude) affects time... Since the Chakras are shaped like pyramids, which is a shape which can generate gravity, spinning our Chakras quicker increases 'gravity' or the 'sucking in' of particular, relevant energies into each respective Chakra, and the quicker we spin them (at X times the speed of light), the quicker this occurs/the more powerful each respective Chakra is and of course cleaning each Chakra.

HP Mageson666 wrote:Its not the property of a man in the sky sitting on a throne, who created the entire universe and all its mind bending factors... so he could watch you go to the bathroom, as he hovers over you all day and night long.

...while appointing its Child rapists worldwide and then blaming you for being raped...and at the same time pretending to be "all-powerful", "all-able", "all-beneficial" while not stopping things happening - or better, preventing things from happening in the first place...

HP. Hoodedcobra666 wrote:People can put 1+1 together on this aspect and understand that the "One God"

Regarding "father, son, and holy spirit" -according to maths, 1+1+1=3; according to "god", 1+1+1=1; according to maths, 0.333...+0.333...+0.333...=0.999... or practically = 1; according to "god" 1+1+1=1. I wonder if "god" knows all the digits of Pi and why there is that tiddy extra ickle bitty-bit left over. The xian would reply, "We don't need to know, so there!" I'd ask, "Where?".

Vx36 wrote:

HP Mageson666 wrote:The other fact is the universe is now known to have no beginning and no end, the ancient texts also mention this.

This has always fascinated and confused me. I can't believe that existence appeared suddenly from nothing and the fact we are talking means at least something does exist so the best I can manage is that there was always a universe. Unfortunately I feel like the human mind is incapable of processing the greater reality and hope one day Satan can enlighten me.

The jew knows that the Universe is infinite and eternal. It just put "god" into it, being that that "god" is supposed to be the infinite/eternal Aether/Universe.

ConsistentMeditator wrote:Something else to mention is that the Big Bang theory makes no sense. Many people do not realize there is something called the Cosmological Constant which is a giant error of how far off our observational data is from what the Big Bang Theory dictates. As far as I remember, this is the ridiculous amount of negative pressure that would have been required to 'Stop the Big Bang from Banging'. Here is Wikipedia's explanation of it, which seems to be consistent with what I am saying:The amount of energy predicted by all the theories is infinitely higher than the amount we actually observe.

ConsistentMeditator wrote:Something else to mention is that the Big Bang theory makes no sense. Many people do not realize there is something called the Cosmological Constant which is a giant error of how far off our observational data is from what the Big Bang Theory dictates. As far as I remember, this is the ridiculous amount of negative pressure that would have been required to 'Stop the Big Bang from Banging'. Here is Wikipedia's explanation of it, which seems to be consistent with what I am saying:The amount of energy predicted by all the theories is infinitely higher than the amount we actually observe.

The first link listed in that page is to a paper which does not say the big bang never happened. It just says it's an event that happened in an eternal universe. Which doesn't sound that unreasonable. Basically the title is clickbait which does not match what the article actually says.

The third link also does not say there was no big bang. I don't have the scientific knowledge to prove the big bang is false but it does seem these links are being used wrongly. Most of them aren't saying it didn't happen, but that the universe as a whole is eternal and the big bang happened within it.

luis wrote:I think there is no other way to say this. Because if we give a beginning to the universe then how or who created it? And then who created the one that created the universe? And so on to the infinity. It's just makes sense that it always existed, that is infinite and will always exist.

I get that is a bit complicated to understand but there is no other way to explain this.

A more reasonable question would be at what point in eternal existence did life come to existence? Or better yet when did Planets(the main holders of life or life givers sanctuaries) pop into reality and out came Solar Systems, Galaxies and generally Universal Life? Another question is what was the first civilization and did they succeed at the game of life like Satan and the Gods?

Funny enough another question pops in according to BlacksforSatan website the pentagram according to the teachings to Africans is how the universe appears. In fact Hermes Trismegustus(Thoth) stated the universe is Triangular I think he means Pyramidic. Is it fair to say that Thoth proposed we live in an arm of the pentagram and thus The Empire of Orion is in one of the arms of the Pentagram away from the central mass?

First it's been stated by Mageson through the sermons of Cosmic Aum and the Prana field and other teachings that at an infinitely high level of the universe things descend down into dimensions. After infinitely coming down at some point in time it hit the 3rd physical dimension or perhaps that at some point 3rd dimension became a judgement point of existence from the Astral existence. We judge the 3rd physical dimension as pure physical effect even though I believe the Satanic Revelations by H.P. Cobra stated "Are you Cobra saying that everything is spiritual aren't you being too spiritual" and he states "Not at all for everything descends down the infinite level of spiritual evolution". If anything H.P. Cobra was stating we aren't being spiritual enough especially now a days.

So basically at what point did something pop in the universe and began to create and transmute things such as say the so-called Akashic Library or Akashic imprint or as Robert Bruce states Akashic Pulse. When did the Universe decide the pre-destination, destination, and post-destination of a mind, body, and soul i.e. an individual at what point did some being or beings i.e. a civilization decided to mess with the Universe and peer into this mysterious infinite world of everlasting bounty to procure a way out of the Universal game of life and become more than what the Universe deems life to be.

We all know the Universe works by path of least resistance i.e. negativity. A planet can be blown up or shredded ecologically by a Gamma Ray Burst. And yet to procure life is very precious like us Humans and our little conundrum with Ayylmaos and their cohort the Jews.

So basically a simple thing to state is in all the time the universe existed when did life come forth and how is life in further areas of other places? We all know our close relatives in Draco and others are communist slavers Reptillian creatures and their bulb-headed slaves a trashed civilization basically wrecked completely like a wrecking crew. So then it seems the Universe in it's infinite existence descended down both something path of least resistance negative and some thing that may even defy the Universes laws of possibilities. After all Satan is merely 1 entity at such high stratosphere of existence that defies the normal of what a beings potential may be.

There might not be a man on sky inventing things but sure as hell the Universe may have had to create in the spiritual sectors something different from it's own programming. Something superior something even superior to the Universe not to disrespect the Universe but bring it into harmony and life giving existence. One such civilization and beings are our Orion Nordics another could be the race of Gargoyles like small Gargoyles or Pazuzu's species, race, or sub-race.

Again begs the question what happens when Satan is a million years old or ten million or a billion or a trillion. At what point what happens? Not just for him but his civilization HIS planets and empire and people.

National Socialism is not fascism, fascism is not National Socialism.

Why are we memetically assaulted into a lump labelled fascism. Do you, pinko, know what fascism really is

ConsistentMeditator wrote:Something else to mention is that the Big Bang theory makes no sense. Many people do not realize there is something called the Cosmological Constant which is a giant error of how far off our observational data is from what the Big Bang Theory dictates. As far as I remember, this is the ridiculous amount of negative pressure that would have been required to 'Stop the Big Bang from Banging'. Here is Wikipedia's explanation of it, which seems to be consistent with what I am saying:The amount of energy predicted by all the theories is infinitely higher than the amount we actually observe.

The first link listed in that page is to a paper which does not say the big bang never happened. It just says it's an event that happened in an eternal universe. Which doesn't sound that unreasonable. Basically the title is clickbait which does not match what the article actually says.

The third link also does not say there was no big bang. I don't have the scientific knowledge to prove the big bang is false but it does seem these links are being used wrongly. Most of them aren't saying it didn't happen, but that the universe as a whole is eternal and the big bang happened within it.

You just gave me a thought of inspiration.

I think maybe a way to explain it could be this.Consider a pan of boiling water - each of these boiling bubbles "is a big bang". Now in the context and size/scale of the Universe it doesn't seem realistic. Order out of chaos. I wouldn't think billions of years would be long enough to calm down the exploding and for there to exist such beauty. The "boiling"/"big bang"-ing is like a raising of the Aether into Physical matter, i.e. when we raise energies which causes things to happen. It's like merely using Magick to raise energies which creates things, that "the big bang" is a massively over-exaggerated version of this, which we do, and which the Ancients and our Gods and Goddesses do, as everyday life.

The jew knows what the truth is, but takes the piss with it. The "explosion" of "the big bang" is like a less-than-smooth formation of energy into matter. Like a sort of 'pop' which energy does to become, and as it is becoming, matter - "the big bang" is a massively-over-exaggerated version, as an 'all-in-one' version of it. Get some TNT and detonate it, and monitor the tiniest-of-the-tiniest things, with a super-super-powerful microscope, and see what 'life' and 'order' is formed out of it. If TNT is too small, then use a H-bomb or A-bomb or N-bomb...or go to an uninhabited star and explode it, then see the 'life' and 'order' formed out of that chaos.

As per the many "the" bibleses - "Earth was void and without form". Void? The Void? Aether? "In the beginning was the Word"? Words (vibrations) manifest things...

Of course, without further learning, it's not easy to give a definitive answer. Maybe the current "the" pope, or the rothschilds, will fund my research...

The Big Bang theory was created by a (((Jesuit))) then passed down the tribal channels to Einstein, were it was rejected by the entire established physic's community and laughed at as insane. Then it was forced on the scientific community by the Jewish power. The Jews went around calling anyone who rejected the Big Bang..... Anti-Semitic.. because this is a Jewish hoax.

It creates a subliminal to the book of Genesis. The Jews have created pseudo science to confuse and stop actual progress and to keep the lie of their Christian program going.

I read recently sacred geometry and the creation of the universe by m Pinkham. has some very interesting perspectives about a lot of topicshe begins with the spiral of serpent sheesha who creates the universe by uncoiling itself; Initially, the 2 spirals released become Brahma the creator of the universe and explains the process from a 'geometrical' perspective...It's a nice read anyhow, I enjoy it, personally

Metratron cube is a synthesis of all sacred geometrical shapes, I THINK From HERE THEY HAVE THE ALL IN 1 PRINCIPLE OR WHATEVER.

Long story short, I don't know to what extent it's perverted because it is, regardless definitely a nice read.

HP Mageson666 wrote:The other fact is the universe is now known to have no beginning and no end, the ancient texts also mention this.

This has always fascinated and confused me. I can't believe that existence appeared suddenly from nothing and the fact we are talking means at least something does exist so the best I can manage is that there was always a universe. Unfortunately I feel like the human mind is incapable of processing the greater reality and hope one day Satan can enlighten me.

The subject fascinates me as well.I personally always thought it is way easier to perceve the infinite than finite. For finite, a wall, a border, the question "and after that what comes" will always pop up. It is somehow like induction in math. This question can be asked endlesly. Jusl like why how when and so on. I think there is no smallest particle in science. There is always somerhing smaller and something bigger.

luis wrote:I think there is no other way to say this. Because if we give a beginning to the universe then how or who created it? And then who created the one that created the universe? And so on to the infinity. It's just makes sense that it always existed, that is infinite and will always exist.

I get that is a bit complicated to understand but there is no other way to explain this.

A more reasonable question would be at what point in eternal existence did life come to existence? Or better yet when did Planets(the main holders of life or life givers sanctuaries) pop into reality and out came Solar Systems, Galaxies and generally Universal Life? Another question is what was the first civilization and did they succeed at the game of life like Satan and the Gods?

Funny enough another question pops in according to BlacksforSatan website the pentagram according to the teachings to Africans is how the universe appears. In fact Hermes Trismegustus(Thoth) stated the universe is Triangular I think he means Pyramidic. Is it fair to say that Thoth proposed we live in an arm of the pentagram and thus The Empire of Orion is in one of the arms of the Pentagram away from the central mass?

First it's been stated by Mageson through the sermons of Cosmic Aum and the Prana field and other teachings that at an infinitely high level of the universe things descend down into dimensions. After infinitely coming down at some point in time it hit the 3rd physical dimension or perhaps that at some point 3rd dimension became a judgement point of existence from the Astral existence. We judge the 3rd physical dimension as pure physical effect even though I believe the Satanic Revelations by H.P. Cobra stated "Are you Cobra saying that everything is spiritual aren't you being too spiritual" and he states "Not at all for everything descends down the infinite level of spiritual evolution". If anything H.P. Cobra was stating we aren't being spiritual enough especially now a days.

So basically at what point did something pop in the universe and began to create and transmute things such as say the so-called Akashic Library or Akashic imprint or as Robert Bruce states Akashic Pulse. When did the Universe decide the pre-destination, destination, and post-destination of a mind, body, and soul i.e. an individual at what point did some being or beings i.e. a civilization decided to mess with the Universe and peer into this mysterious infinite world of everlasting bounty to procure a way out of the Universal game of life and become more than what the Universe deems life to be.

We all know the Universe works by path of least resistance i.e. negativity. A planet can be blown up or shredded ecologically by a Gamma Ray Burst. And yet to procure life is very precious like us Humans and our little conundrum with Ayylmaos and their cohort the Jews.

So basically a simple thing to state is in all the time the universe existed when did life come forth and how is life in further areas of other places? We all know our close relatives in Draco and others are communist slavers Reptillian creatures and their bulb-headed slaves a trashed civilization basically wrecked completely like a wrecking crew. So then it seems the Universe in it's infinite existence descended down both something path of least resistance negative and some thing that may even defy the Universes laws of possibilities. After all Satan is merely 1 entity at such high stratosphere of existence that defies the normal of what a beings potential may be.

There might not be a man on sky inventing things but sure as hell the Universe may have had to create in the spiritual sectors something different from it's own programming. Something superior something even superior to the Universe not to disrespect the Universe but bring it into harmony and life giving existence. One such civilization and beings are our Orion Nordics another could be the race of Gargoyles like small Gargoyles or Pazuzu's species, race, or sub-race.

Again begs the question what happens when Satan is a million years old or ten million or a billion or a trillion. At what point what happens? Not just for him but his civilization HIS planets and empire and people.

It just exist. I don't think there is another explaination. Obviously there have been many planets and many civilizations.

We don't actualy know how much old the universe is and i don't think that there is number becuase It always existed and it always will exist. Now Imagine how many planets have been created and destroyed (even because of nature not only artificialy) and how many civilizations exist, have existed and will exist. It's mindblowing. The ammount of planets, civilizations and thing out there...i seriously can't way to know more and explorate the universe!

HP Mageson666 wrote:The other fact is the universe is now known to have no beginning and no end, the ancient texts also mention this.

This has always fascinated and confused me. I can't believe that existence appeared suddenly from nothing and the fact we are talking means at least something does exist so the best I can manage is that there was always a universe. Unfortunately I feel like the human mind is incapable of processing the greater reality and hope one day Satan can enlighten me.

The subject fascinates me as well.I personally always thought it is way easier to perceve the infinite than finite. For finite, a wall, a border, the question "and after that what comes" will always pop up. It is somehow like induction in math. This question can be asked endlesly. Jusl like why how when and so on. I think there is no smallest particle in science. There is always somerhing smaller and something bigger.

Let me ask you and anyone this - what is "the last number"?! "Infinite" implies an amount - but what is the last number? What is the final amount?! 9 is not the last number because then there is 10...

Vx36 wrote:This has always fascinated and confused me. I can't believe that existence appeared suddenly from nothing and the fact we are talking means at least something does exist so the best I can manage is that there was always a universe. Unfortunately I feel like the human mind is incapable of processing the greater reality and hope one day Satan can enlighten me.

The subject fascinates me as well.I personally always thought it is way easier to perceve the infinite than finite. For finite, a wall, a border, the question "and after that what comes" will always pop up. It is somehow like induction in math. This question can be asked endlesly. Jusl like why how when and so on. I think there is no smallest particle in science. There is always somerhing smaller and something bigger.

Let me ask you and anyone this - what is "the last number"?! "Infinite" implies an amount - but what is the last number? What is the final amount?! 9 is not the last number because then there is 10...

Interestingly enough in math there is no "next number" in the truest sense. Using your example, what comes after 9? 10? no, but what about 9.1? But then what about 9.01? And it keeps going. This is also infinity in that no matter how much smaller you go it wont end. Infinity is never ending and so is eternity. For the universe to end that would mean that something is at the other side of that ending. And if something is on the other side did the "universe" actually truly end? It's over complicated and pointlessly confusing and its naturally so since its an enemy brainwashing made with lies like always.

The first link listed in that page is to a paper which does not say the big bang never happened. It just says it's an event that happened in an eternal universe. Which doesn't sound that unreasonable. Basically the title is clickbait which does not match what the article actually says.

The third link also does not say there was no big bang. I don't have the scientific knowledge to prove the big bang is false but it does seem these links are being used wrongly. Most of them aren't saying it didn't happen, but that the universe as a whole is eternal and the big bang happened within it.

You just gave me a thought of inspiration.

I think maybe a way to explain it could be this.Consider a pan of boiling water - each of these boiling bubbles "is a big bang". Now in the context and size/scale of the Universe it doesn't seem realistic. Order out of chaos. I wouldn't think billions of years would be long enough to calm down the exploding and for there to exist such beauty. The "boiling"/"big bang"-ing is like a raising of the Aether into Physical matter, i.e. when we raise energies which causes things to happen. It's like merely using Magick to raise energies which creates things, that "the big bang" is a massively over-exaggerated version of this, which we do, and which the Ancients and our Gods and Goddesses do, as everyday life.

The jew knows what the truth is, but takes the piss with it. The "explosion" of "the big bang" is like a less-than-smooth formation of energy into matter. Like a sort of 'pop' which energy does to become, and as it is becoming, matter - "the big bang" is a massively-over-exaggerated version, as an 'all-in-one' version of it. Get some TNT and detonate it, and monitor the tiniest-of-the-tiniest things, with a super-super-powerful microscope, and see what 'life' and 'order' is formed out of it. If TNT is too small, then use a H-bomb or A-bomb or N-bomb...or go to an uninhabited star and explode it, then see the 'life' and 'order' formed out of that chaos.

As per the many "the" bibleses - "Earth was void and without form". Void? The Void? Aether? "In the beginning was the Word"? Words (vibrations) manifest things...

Of course, without further learning, it's not easy to give a definitive answer. Maybe the current "the" pope, or the rothschilds, will fund my research...

So why did you just totally ignore everything I said? Like how I told you you are using those links wrongly and they do not say what you think they say, and then you talk about some complete other subject which also doesn't relate to my argument about the big bang's flaws at all. It makes it seem like i am talking to a wall.

sunrise wrote:I read recently sacred geometry and the creation of the universe by m Pinkham. has some very interesting perspectives about a lot of topicshe begins with the spiral of serpent sheesha who creates the universe by uncoiling itself; Initially, the 2 spirals released become Brahma the creator of the universe and explains the process from a 'geometrical' perspective...It's a nice read anyhow, I enjoy it, personally

Metratron cube is a synthesis of all sacred geometrical shapes, I THINK From HERE THEY HAVE THE ALL IN 1 PRINCIPLE OR WHATEVER.

Long story short, I don't know to what extent it's perverted because it is, regardless definitely a nice read.

Be careful as many of these teachings are poisoned with dangerous disinformation, made to confuse.

HP Mageson666 wrote:The Big Bang theory was created by a (((Jesuit))) then passed down the tribal channels to Einstein, were it was rejected by the entire established physic's community and laughed at as insane.

Could you provide a link please to prove this? Otherwise it seems like everyone is just supposed to take this statement at face value without knowing what proves it.

Then it was forced on the scientific community by the Jewish power. The Jews went around calling anyone who rejected the Big Bang..... Anti-Semitic.. because this is a Jewish hoax.

It creates a subliminal to the book of Genesis. The Jews have created pseudo science to confuse and stop actual progress and to keep the lie of their Christian program going.

Could you summarize in a paragraph or two the reasons/evidence that prove to you it's fake? I have suspicions that it may be a hoax and this is circumstantial evidence which if true would heavily indicate it. But it's not actually disproving the theory in itself and its internal logic, of why the big bang couldn't happen. It would also help if you cited any relevant sources.

EasternFireLion666 wrote:The subject fascinates me as well.I personally always thought it is way easier to perceve the infinite than finite. For finite, a wall, a border, the question "and after that what comes" will always pop up. It is somehow like induction in math. This question can be asked endlesly. Jusl like why how when and so on. I think there is no smallest particle in science. There is always somerhing smaller and something bigger.

Let me ask you and anyone this - what is "the last number"?! "Infinite" implies an amount - but what is the last number? What is the final amount?! 9 is not the last number because then there is 10...

Interestingly enough in math there is no "next number" in the truest sense. Using your example, what comes after 9? 10? no, but what about 9.1? But then what about 9.01? And it keeps going. This is also infinity in that no matter how much smaller you go it wont end. Infinity is never ending and so is eternity. For the universe to end that would mean that something is at the other side of that ending. And if something is on the other side did the "universe" actually truly end? It's over complicated and pointlessly confusing and its naturally so since its an enemy brainwashing made with lies like always.

Until you just used the example of decimal places, it was difficult for me to accept that there can be "infinitely-small"; it is much easier to accept the infinitely-large than the infinitely-small (despite the limitations of the Mind being able to fathom such vast enormity - i.e. trying to contain infinity), but using decimal places as you just did makes that easier to grasp. It's not much easier, but it is easier.

For the universe to end that would mean that something is at the other side of that ending. And if something is on the other side did the "universe" actually truly end?

Now...are we talking about the Universe or are we talking about the space in which the Universe...occupies - or is it that Space occupies the Universe?!

i.e.

"the Universe" is everything and all within it...or

"the Universe" is everything and all within it but "fills" this space called Space... or

because of point A, the Universe actually does include this space we call Space, because the Universe is everything and all...

I might have missed some things, such as in the sequence ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, CBA regarding these things, but 1) I can't be bothered (CBA!) to think that much about all of it!, and 2) it would be too complicated, as you say!

It's over complicated and pointlessly confusing and its naturally so since its an enemy brainwashing made with lies like always.

While what you say makes me lol a bit, I also want to say - this.This^

Ryan666RR wrote:So, if i'm right Satan gave us the power of creation?

Yeah, really. Satanas, Satan's full name, is basically a fundamental Word of the very Universe itself. It can be vibrated (the Universe is a Vibrational Aether Field) to literally create/manifest things into Physical actuality. Depending on our abilities and power, and other factors countering our work and abilities and power, things can take time - and the bigger the object, the longer it would take to manifest.

ConsistentMeditator wrote:

FancyMancy wrote:

ConsistentMeditator wrote:The first link listed in that page is to a paper which does not say the big bang never happened. It just says it's an event that happened in an eternal universe. Which doesn't sound that unreasonable. Basically the title is clickbait which does not match what the article actually says.

The third link also does not say there was no big bang. I don't have the scientific knowledge to prove the big bang is false but it does seem these links are being used wrongly. Most of them aren't saying it didn't happen, but that the universe as a whole is eternal and the big bang happened within it.

You just gave me a thought of inspiration.

I think maybe a way to explain it could be this.Consider a pan of boiling water - each of these boiling bubbles "is a big bang". Now in the context and size/scale of the Universe it doesn't seem realistic. Order out of chaos. I wouldn't think billions of years would be long enough to calm down the exploding and for there to exist such beauty. The "boiling"/"big bang"-ing is like a raising of the Aether into Physical matter, i.e. when we raise energies which causes things to happen. It's like merely using Magick to raise energies which creates things, that "the big bang" is a massively over-exaggerated version of this, which we do, and which the Ancients and our Gods and Goddesses do, as everyday life.

The jew knows what the truth is, but takes the piss with it. The "explosion" of "the big bang" is like a less-than-smooth formation of energy into matter. Like a sort of 'pop' which energy does to become, and as it is becoming, matter - "the big bang" is a massively-over-exaggerated version, as an 'all-in-one' version of it. Get some TNT and detonate it, and monitor the tiniest-of-the-tiniest things, with a super-super-powerful microscope, and see what 'life' and 'order' is formed out of it. If TNT is too small, then use a H-bomb or A-bomb or N-bomb...or go to an uninhabited star and explode it, then see the 'life' and 'order' formed out of that chaos.

As per the many "the" bibleses - "Earth was void and without form". Void? The Void? Aether? "In the beginning was the Word"? Words (vibrations) manifest things...

Of course, without further learning, it's not easy to give a definitive answer. Maybe the current "the" pope, or the rothschilds, will fund my research...

So why did you just totally ignore everything I said? Like how I told you you are using those links wrongly and they do not say what you think they say, and then you talk about some complete other subject which also doesn't relate to my argument about the big bang's flaws at all. It makes it seem like i am talking to a wall.

I read what you said and furthered the conversation. If you want to talk to a wall, then go and talk to one.

sunrise wrote:I read recently sacred geometry and the creation of the universe by m Pinkham. has some very interesting perspectives about a lot of topicshe begins with the spiral of serpent sheesha who creates the universe by uncoiling itself; Initially, the 2 spirals released become Brahma the creator of the universe and explains the process from a 'geometrical' perspective...It's a nice read anyhow, I enjoy it, personally

Metratron cube is a synthesis of all sacred geometrical shapes, I THINK From HERE THEY HAVE THE ALL IN 1 PRINCIPLE OR WHATEVER.

Long story short, I don't know to what extent it's perverted because it is, regardless definitely a nice read.

The Metatron Cube is the structure of the astral energetic field put around the Earth by the Jewish enemy.

...what happened is this planet was put into a lower dimensional state called "Metatron's cube" this is the state we are in now. Metatron's cube is the energy field the enemy program has created in the astral gird of the earth, with the 22 Hebrew letters and how they connect into their programs of the Bible and Koran, and the final materialization of the slave planet its designed to bring about...

...the lower density of "Metatron's cube" has created the dross within the soul that manifests in time within the body as sickness, old age and death. The effects of the "Metatron's cube." There is also the time factor within this all, the time between the mind's ability to think and image something and manifesting it is to the point of a major lag to almost nothing. And the negativity human's suffer is made to the highest level. The negative effects of the Metatron dimension are old age, death, suffering of all sorts....

...This is shown in the enemy book the Bible which created Metatron's cube. The enemy curses humanity to old age, sickness and death in Genesis. The enemy even states in Genesis they have put a curse upon the entire earth for the benefit of the Jews. So we are in a Prison Planet. The cube of Metatron which is also the Kabbalah cube which is the 22 Hebrew letters in Kabbalah, the Torah....

"I feel awe of the Gods, I love, I revere, I venerate them,and in short have the same feelings towards them as one would have towards kind master, or teachers or fathers or guardians or any beings of that sort" -Julianus Imperator

This information is all over the net, there are also entire books on the subject that Einstein was a fraud as well. Henry Ford was behind exposing Einstein and organizing a campaign to chase him out of his tour in America for being a fraud. This has been known forever.

ConsistentMeditator wrote:Could you provide a link please to prove this? Otherwise it seems like everyone is just supposed to take this statement at face value without knowing what proves it.

Could you summarize in a paragraph or two the reasons/evidence that prove to you it's fake? I have suspicions that it may be a hoax and this is circumstantial evidence which if true would heavily indicate it. But it's not actually disproving the theory in itself and its internal logic, of why the big bang couldn't happen. It would also help if you cited any relevant sources.

Look up einstein the incorrigible plagiarist there used to be a website with the whole book written in it, but I can't find it now. But maybe you can find it. You can see what it's all about and maybe even find a pdf.

Did you know Einstein was an official member of more than 35 different communist organizations? Did you know in WW2 that Einstein was one of the #1 main people who pressured and convinced the US President into exploding Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Burning hundreds of thousands of people in an instant, doesn't get much more communist than that.

HP Mageson666 wrote:This information is all over the net, there are also entire books on the subject that Einstein was a fraud as well. Henry Ford was behind exposing Einstein and organizing a campaign to chase him out of his tour in America for being a fraud. This has been known forever.

ConsistentMeditator wrote:Could you provide a link please to prove this? Otherwise it seems like everyone is just supposed to take this statement at face value without knowing what proves it.

Could you summarize in a paragraph or two the reasons/evidence that prove to you it's fake? I have suspicions that it may be a hoax and this is circumstantial evidence which if true would heavily indicate it. But it's not actually disproving the theory in itself and its internal logic, of why the big bang couldn't happen. It would also help if you cited any relevant sources.

So it's well known all over the net, but you can't spend 1 or 2 paragraphs explaining the basic concept. You know what, I will not even ask you to look up the explanation of why the big bang is an illogical theory. I will just ask you if you agree with this objection to it, or are using it as one of your reasons:That the negative pressure which would stop the big bang from continuing to exponentially expand couldn't possibly exist and this is the error called the cosmological constant which was made up to explain away the impossibility of the big bang theory. As otherwise the universe would be trillions of times larger if it kept expanding at the initial speed the big bang theorists say it did without magically stopping for no known reason. So is that the reason you think it is a hoax, or is it another reason?

Things like Henry Ford exposing him are only circumstantial pieces of evidence which help convince me that the big bang is likely a hoax. I agree that it is likely a hoax, but I am asking because I want to understand the scientific reasons why it doesn't make sense, not just the fact that it in all probability is a hoax.

When Ford runs off Einstein for being a fraud, what grounds do you think this was done on. Why did entire physicist panels condemn Einstein, why is the Big Bang forced on the science community? Because it was never accepted. Why was it condemned and never excepted by expert physicists. The Jews state its because of anti-Semitism, do you believe this nonsense explanation.

ConsistentMeditator wrote:[So it's well known all over the net, but you can't spend 1 or 2 paragraphs explaining the basic concept. You know what, I will not even ask you to look up the explanation of why the big bang is an illogical theory. I will just ask you if you agree with this objection to it, or are using it as one of your reasons:That the negative pressure which would stop the big bang from continuing to exponentially expand couldn't possibly exist and this is the error called the cosmological constant which was made up to explain away the impossibility of the big bang theory. As otherwise the universe would be trillions of times larger if it kept expanding at the initial speed the big bang theorists say it did without magically stopping for no known reason. So is that the reason you think it is a hoax, or is it another reason?

Things like Henry Ford exposing him are only circumstantial pieces of evidence which help convince me that the big bang is likely a hoax. I agree that it is likely a hoax, but I am asking because I want to understand the scientific reasons why it doesn't make sense, not just the fact that it in all probability is a hoax.

Mageson is so much more busy than you can probably even imagine. It isn't his job to carry you every single little step of the way on everything. You have to develop the ability to think for yourself, find your own information, and be able to come to your own conclusions. And it isn't anyone elses job to do all the thinking for you especially if you're just going to be lazy and not even try. Open up your intuition, open up your logic and reasoning, learn to think instead of just being told. You aren't a baby anymore. You have your own senses and your own mind. There's no reason why you can't think other than you just choose not to.

ConsistentMeditator wrote:Something else to mention is that the Big Bang theory makes no sense. Many people do not realize there is something called the Cosmological Constant which is a giant error of how far off our observational data is from what the Big Bang Theory dictates. As far as I remember, this is the ridiculous amount of negative pressure that would have been required to 'Stop the Big Bang from Banging'. Here is Wikipedia's explanation of it, which seems to be consistent with what I am saying:The amount of energy predicted by all the theories is infinitely higher than the amount we actually observe.

Wikipedia wrote:The discrepancy between theorized vacuum energy from QFT and observed vacuum energy from cosmology is a source of major contention, with the values predicted exceeding observation by some 120 orders of magnitude, a discrepancy that has been called "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics!".[8] This issue is called the cosmological constant problem and it is one of the greatest unsolved mysteries in science with many physicists believing that "the vacuum holds the key to a full understanding of nature".[9]

I am pretty sure the reason the theory exceeds observation by an absurd number of orders of magnitude, in other words, trillions of trillions of trillions of times higher(actually infinitely more) than what is actually seen, is because the Theory-predicted amount would be what happened if you drew the initial expansion spike of the big bang graph out infinitely rather than stopping it with a screeching halt. And the reason they stopped it like that, I would guess was because the data showed far more gradual expansion than they expected, which was undeniable at a certain point, so they fudge the data at the start of it to try to make it fit the theory, or just make it up, while letting the rest of the data sit since it's undeniable.

To explain this better, look at the graph for the big bang model of the history of the universe. You see a massive spike of growth at the start which suddenly comes to a screeching halt, only to incredibly slowly grow afterwards. Scientists have basically no explanation for how there could be such a massive stop to an unending exponential "Big Bang" expansion of space. Here is a graph of the big bang:

Also, those two lines at the start are 1000s of times an under-representation of just how extreme the growth supposedly was at the start, due to limits of a graph that humans can look at. Normally they would extend 1000s of times higher before suddenly flattening out in an instant. Try imagining just how big the universe would be according to big bang theorists if this initial expansion went on forever, or if the initial spike very gradually slowed down due to entropy rather than coming to a screeching halt for no explainable reason. It's ridiculous.

Even if the Big Bang theorists are right that due to redshift the entire observable universe seems to come from a single point, that does not mean the rest of the universe came from a single point, or that space and time only existed there, or that the one point necessarily exploded in an instant. It could be that the limits of our observation only go so far and this is just one of endless areas of space that are unfolding from different points throughout an endless universe that continues to grow. That seems much more rational than a sudden explosion without cause which comes to a screeching halt for no explainable reason. I am not going to claim to be a scientist who has direct knowledge of the facts here, but that does seem like a huge hole in the big bang theory. It's far better than "Gawdunit", but it still seems problematic.

I was going to tell you to go read this comment and was kind of surprised you're the one who wrote it. So you have already found one perfect example on how the big bang is total bullshit and doesn't make any logical sense. You described it in good detail, there isn't really any way to argue with it. So what are you even asking for? Because you already got your answer. You have already figured it out in a major logical way, so what more do you need? Then the circumstantial evidence Mageson shows perfectly supports the factual/logical evidence that you have already found and it all comes together and points to the same conclusions. So what? You just want Mageson to follow you around changing your diapers for you? Because he's too busy to care about "proving to you" something that you don't even want to understand. You're a waste of his time and effort if you sit there with your thumbs in your ears and purposefully decide not to think.

Story is: people wanted an "official scientific" view of the world instead of a dumb christian one. So the people who wrote the bible didn't want their dumb little goys to scurry away, so they just basically rewrote Genesis in "scientific" terms. Now instead of the universe exploding out of Big Juw God's ass, now it just Big Banged out of some unknown place (but probably out of Big Juw God's ass again) see how it's a fake explanation that accomplishes its job of still leaving a door open to christ-tardianity? And doesn't make any kind of rational or logical sense in any kind of way because it's still 100% bullshit

ConsistentMeditator wrote:So it's well known all over the net, but you can't spend 1 or 2 paragraphs explaining the basic concept. You know what, I will not even ask you to look up the explanation of why the big bang is an illogical theory.

HP Mageson666 wrote:When Ford runs off Einstein for being a fraud, what grounds do you think this was done on. Why did entire physicist panels condemn Einstein, why is the Big Bang forced on the science community? Because it was never accepted. Why was it condemned and never excepted by expert physicists. The Jews state its because of anti-Semitism, do you believe this nonsense explanation.

ConsistentMeditator wrote:[So it's well known all over the net, but you can't spend 1 or 2 paragraphs explaining the basic concept. You know what, I will not even ask you to look up the explanation of why the big bang is an illogical theory. I will just ask you if you agree with this objection to it, or are using it as one of your reasons:That the negative pressure which would stop the big bang from continuing to exponentially expand couldn't possibly exist and this is the error called the cosmological constant which was made up to explain away the impossibility of the big bang theory. As otherwise the universe would be trillions of times larger if it kept expanding at the initial speed the big bang theorists say it did without magically stopping for no known reason. So is that the reason you think it is a hoax, or is it another reason?

Things like Henry Ford exposing him are only circumstantial pieces of evidence which help convince me that the big bang is likely a hoax. I agree that it is likely a hoax, but I am asking because I want to understand the scientific reasons why it doesn't make sense, not just the fact that it in all probability is a hoax.

I already said I believe the big bang theory is probably nonsense. But knowing=/understanding. I know this is a hoax, based on said evidence you mention, and that it is not 'Anti-Semitism' that drove people to expose it as a hoax, but I want to understand how specifically it is impossible. Do you see what I mean here? I want to understand the logic of why it is impossible. I pointed out a pretty good reason why and wanted to check if you agreed with that but for some reason you didn't respond to this. The whole reason I mention the reason is because I am not a particle physicist and can't have direct knowledge my objection is the totality of the explanation of why the big bang theory is a hoax, you have probably researched it more so I wanted to know your personal opinion. So it would help if you would say that instead of telling me to look it up, when if I look it up, I have no way to even know I'm coming to the same conclusion.

So let me get this straight. I can't ask other people if they have the same opinion as me, because this is 'a waste of time'. How about I put that in a harsher way. Mageson was the one who didn't bother explaining the logic of why the big bang is impossible in terms of phy, and since I attempted to explain something he didn't even bother to, or didn't understand at all, you should be thanking me for posting that reason, which you seem to agree with and find valid. But instead, you are giving me shit for illustrating something you wouldn't have thought of to that level at all, and demand I not even bother to ask for confirmation with the administration here on what the general thought process is, and to what degree it matches mine. Probably because you would never question anything along those lines. Instead, you just 'think for yourself', and all your conclusions remain in your own mind, never changing regardless of how wrong they might be.

If you are going to bother responding again, please start the response by admitting my question was based on something true, and if you hadn't even thought of that criticism of the big bang before I mentioned it, then say that, right away. After that, if you aren't going to change your opinion about the admins being too busy to bother responding, you could try to explain your own reasons why you think the big bang is logically impossible, if you have any that go beyond just copying what I said.

I think maybe a way to explain it could be this.Consider a pan of boiling water - each of these boiling bubbles "is a big bang". Now in the context and size/scale of the Universe it doesn't seem realistic. Order out of chaos. I wouldn't think billions of years would be long enough to calm down the exploding and for there to exist such beauty. The "boiling"/"big bang"-ing is like a raising of the Aether into Physical matter, i.e. when we raise energies which causes things to happen. It's like merely using Magick to raise energies which creates things, that "the big bang" is a massively over-exaggerated version of this, which we do, and which the Ancients and our Gods and Goddesses do, as everyday life.

The jew knows what the truth is, but takes the piss with it. The "explosion" of "the big bang" is like a less-than-smooth formation of energy into matter. Like a sort of 'pop' which energy does to become, and as it is becoming, matter - "the big bang" is a massively-over-exaggerated version, as an 'all-in-one' version of it. Get some TNT and detonate it, and monitor the tiniest-of-the-tiniest things, with a super-super-powerful microscope, and see what 'life' and 'order' is formed out of it. If TNT is too small, then use a H-bomb or A-bomb or N-bomb...or go to an uninhabited star and explode it, then see the 'life' and 'order' formed out of that chaos.

As per the many "the" bibleses - "Earth was void and without form". Void? The Void? Aether? "In the beginning was the Word"? Words (vibrations) manifest things...

Of course, without further learning, it's not easy to give a definitive answer. Maybe the current "the" pope, or the rothschilds, will fund my research...

So why did you just totally ignore everything I said? Like how I told you you are using those links wrongly and they do not say what you think they say, and then you talk about some complete other subject which also doesn't relate to my argument about the big bang's flaws at all. It makes it seem like i am talking to a wall.

I read what you said and furthered the conversation. If you want to talk to a wall, then go and talk to one.

Alright, let me re-explain. I'll respond to what you said there which i didn't last time, but I want you to not ignore my original post this time.

First of all no, the pope and rothschilds are not going to give you funding. That part should be obvious. Also no research institution is going to give you money either.

Then there is what you said about the big bang, saying there would be multiple big bangs throughout the universe as a whole. The basic idea here you are getting at is that the creation involved in the 'big bang' would be a continuous process ultimately happening everywhere at once to some degree. If the big bang is false then it would as i said be a problem where such a massive expansion had no negative pressure that should logically be able to stop it or slow it. As we see in the Big Bang graphs where the exponential expansion instantly stops for no explained reason, this is the 'Cosmological Constant' error, as far as I have read with wikipedia, and it's the biggest error in the history of physics by far.

The next step is as you have somewhat said with the idea of multiple big bangs, that there is no reason this 'quantum fluctuation' process that effectively creates energy, would not also be happening everywhere in the universe at once. Even if the big bang theory was true, the quantum fluctuations that gave rise to it should also be creating energy everywhere in the universe. However, to be frank, your way of approaching this topic seemed so directionless and unclear that I didn't want to respond to it in the first post. The reason billions of years wouldn't be long enough is not simply your personal feeling as you implied a bit, but as I said, that the initial burst of expansion should have gone infinitely further before entropy could slow it down. When you look at the big bang graphs, just remember how they don't gradually curve from the initial spike, they stop instantly at a certain point.

Going back to what I said last post, you didn't respond to what I said about how many of the links did not say what you thought they did. They said the Big Bang still happened, but within an eternal universe. So please try next time to double check and see that your links actually say what you think they do, it would have only taken like 5 minutes of reading the article. It seems you fell for the clickbait title.

HP Mageson666 wrote:When Ford runs off Einstein for being a fraud, what grounds do you think this was done on. Why did entire physicist panels condemn Einstein, why is the Big Bang forced on the science community? Because it was never accepted. Why was it condemned and never excepted by expert physicists. The Jews state its because of anti-Semitism, do you believe this nonsense explanation.

ConsistentMeditator wrote:[So it's well known all over the net, but you can't spend 1 or 2 paragraphs explaining the basic concept. You know what, I will not even ask you to look up the explanation of why the big bang is an illogical theory. I will just ask you if you agree with this objection to it, or are using it as one of your reasons:That the negative pressure which would stop the big bang from continuing to exponentially expand couldn't possibly exist and this is the error called the cosmological constant which was made up to explain away the impossibility of the big bang theory. As otherwise the universe would be trillions of times larger if it kept expanding at the initial speed the big bang theorists say it did without magically stopping for no known reason. So is that the reason you think it is a hoax, or is it another reason?

Things like Henry Ford exposing him are only circumstantial pieces of evidence which help convince me that the big bang is likely a hoax. I agree that it is likely a hoax, but I am asking because I want to understand the scientific reasons why it doesn't make sense, not just the fact that it in all probability is a hoax.

I already said I believe the big bang theory is probably nonsense. But knowing=/understanding. I know this is a hoax, based on said evidence you mention, and that it is not 'Anti-Semitism' that drove people to expose it as a hoax, but I want to understand how specifically it is impossible. Do you see what I mean here? I want to understand the logic of why it is impossible. I pointed out a pretty good reason why and wanted to check if you agreed with that but for some reason you didn't respond to this. The whole reason I mention the reason is because I am not a particle physicist and can't have direct knowledge my objection is the totality of the explanation of why the big bang theory is a hoax, you have probably researched it more so I wanted to know your personal opinion. So it would help if you would say that instead of telling me to look it up, when if I look it up, I have no way to even know I'm coming to the same conclusion.

The thing is if you know the answer to your own question why do you pose let's say "Uneasy" or just pressing questions that you can self-answer by quick googling in order to bring the other HP into a weird position?

If you just want sources to enlighten others, you can ask more specifically about that.

I mean we are answering you, but what is the case here?

Big Bang Jew Theory is rejected simply because it is utter nonsense. It supports from a physicist theoretical standby, that certain "Particles" collided in conditions which existed before time space. How can you have particles which were created "after" this point, exist in a so called "Nothingness void" and collide in there, creating the so called "Big bang" effect? It's scientific fraud and it's no better than a religion to believe in the big bang. So what "Big Bang" and "Then the universe was created"? It's just big bonkers theory.

How can there be any "Radiation" as the big bang supports if essentially radiation did not exist before "nothing existed before this of our world" state? If radiation existed before, then something existed, the universe wasn't farted out of nowhere, and it won't "end". It didn't come out of any "Big Bang" or sudden "Explosion" that "Created it" from "Nothing".

This theory was concoted by Rabbis. A lot of Rabbis DO believe in the Big bang. There are numerous books on the subject where they relate their 6000 years old genealogy with multiplications and they say that this "proves" the big bang. The jews also believe the universe was literally farted from their egregore's ass, because they are that egoistical.

The "Big Bang" is basically Bible based of a perception and way to try to explain things.

These types of self collapsing theories are the favorites of jews and whomever doesn't subscribe at them is just stoned and that's it.

The same goes for the dumb way they present the trinity. It was a jew daddy, it was a jew holy shit spirit, and it was a jew Rabbi Yehoshua son. Same and one but totally separate. Because this thing farted, the universe was born. Believe it or be stoned goy.

ConsistentMeditator wrote:First of all no, the pope and rothschilds are not going to give you funding. That part should be obvious. Also no research institution is going to give you money either.

Assuming you're new here, then you wouldn't know I was being sarcastic. If you read my posts enough, you should eventually come to realise when I am being sarcastic!

Then there is what you said about the big bang, saying there would be multiple big bangs throughout the universe as a whole.

That's not quite what I meant. I suppose I didn't explain what I meant properly. I'll try again (but first you should notice that I tend to speak in metaphor/symbolism for some of the time; coming from a christian background I realise this is quite necessary for some people because thinking in literal, critical, realistic terms is rather difficult).

I didn't mean there are/were/would be multiple "big bangs". The way I am thinking about it is that with the Vibrational Aether Field (the Universe), when energy is at a sufficient amount/stage/level/pattern..., to come into being as Physical matter, it sort of 'pops' into Physical existence (it existed already, but just in a different form). As if there's a sort of boundary between Physical and Astral; this "barrier" must be broken, or "popped". Since the Universe is/must be/seems to be infinite and eternal, then this happens everywhere. Naturally, due to gravity and forces, energies accumulate together - Planets, Stars, etc. On a smaller scale, People and Animals and Insects...

Maybe if I said it this way, it might make more sense - the Universe has always been, apparently, and matter is, as I explain it, energy compressed and compacted so much into different patterns. Over all of the Universe, this vibrating at certain frequencies (which can increase or decrease naturally) causes certain things to happen, then after that, in any particular location, a particular amount of energy becomes a particular type of matter. This then causes a difference, which with the initial vibration + this new piece of matter, together their vibration/vibrations might increase or decrease, and also have different frequencies which might be harmonious or disharmonious, therefore forming another thing or things... Then from that, more... more... more...

Of course, I don't have all of the answers, and I might not have gone any closer to answering you sufficiently, either. I do welcome input to keep my wild and imaginative thinking on a straight track! (Similarly, modern science tends to be people with very wild imaginations, and because they're the super-dooper clever, clever physicists, then we lowly idiots cannot question their Disneyland imaginatory ideas.)

Going back to what I said last post, you didn't respond to what I said about how many of the links did not say what you thought they did. They said the Big Bang still happened, but within an eternal universe. So please try next time to double check and see that your links actually say what you think they do, it would have only taken like 5 minutes of reading the article. It seems you fell for the clickbait title.

Learning is, or at least can be, a continuous process. Despite whether the articles are honest or deceptive, it can still show that what (((science))) says and what it is these days is still not necessarily the 100% accurate truth. Part of what I do is to share media and things which say a lot of things and how they influence people (sheeple) to misunderstand things or to belittle us and undermine us, etc. "Laws" are created based on "society"'s "opinion", yet this "opinion" is fed into them by (((media))), among other things, so the jew-controlled media, education, research/funding, etc., is all working together, in cahoots with each other, to make us learning real truth very difficult. I apologise if I still haven't answered sufficiently. I do hope that even in my (eccentric?) way, I could still provide something, bring something 'to the table', which some, hopefully, would understand and take things from.

HP Mageson666 wrote:When Ford runs off Einstein for being a fraud, what grounds do you think this was done on. Why did entire physicist panels condemn Einstein, why is the Big Bang forced on the science community? Because it was never accepted. Why was it condemned and never excepted by expert physicists. The Jews state its because of anti-Semitism, do you believe this nonsense explanation.

I already said I believe the big bang theory is probably nonsense. But knowing=/understanding. I know this is a hoax, based on said evidence you mention, and that it is not 'Anti-Semitism' that drove people to expose it as a hoax, but I want to understand how specifically it is impossible. Do you see what I mean here? I want to understand the logic of why it is impossible. I pointed out a pretty good reason why and wanted to check if you agreed with that but for some reason you didn't respond to this. The whole reason I mention the reason is because I am not a particle physicist and can't have direct knowledge my objection is the totality of the explanation of why the big bang theory is a hoax, you have probably researched it more so I wanted to know your personal opinion. So it would help if you would say that instead of telling me to look it up, when if I look it up, I have no way to even know I'm coming to the same conclusion.

The thing is if you know the answer to your own question why do you pose let's say "Uneasy" or just pressing questions that you can self-answer by quick googling in order to bring the other HP into a weird position?

If you just want sources to enlighten others, you can ask more specifically about that.

I mean we are answering you, but what is the case here?

Big Bang Jew Theory is rejected simply because it is utter nonsense. It supports from a physicist theoretical standby, that certain "Particles" collided in conditions which existed before time space. How can you have particles which were created "after" this point, exist in a so called "Nothingness void" and collide in there, creating the so called "Big bang" effect? It's scientific fraud and it's no better than a religion to believe in the big bang. So what "Big Bang" and "Then the universe was created"? It's just big bonkers theory.

How can there be any "Radiation" as the big bang supports if essentially radiation did not exist before "nothing existed before this of our world" state? If radiation existed before, then something existed, the universe wasn't farted out of nowhere, and it won't "end". It didn't come out of any "Big Bang" or sudden "Explosion" that "Created it" from "Nothing".

This theory was concoted by Rabbis. A lot of Rabbis DO believe in the Big bang. There are numerous books on the subject where they relate their 6000 years old genealogy with multiplications and they say that this "proves" the big bang. The jews also believe the universe was literally farted from their egregore's ass, because they are that egoistical.

The "Big Bang" is basically Bible based of a perception and way to try to explain things.

These types of self collapsing theories are the favorites of jews and whomever doesn't subscribe at them is just stoned and that's it.

The same goes for the dumb way they present the trinity. It was a jew daddy, it was a jew holy shit spirit, and it was a jew Rabbi Yehoshua son. Same and one but totally separate. Because this thing farted, the universe was born. Believe it or be stoned goy.

Alright, I agree that it shouldn't be able to come 'out of nothing' and this doesn't make logical sense. That you can't have a particle reaction create time and space as they necessarily already existed for the reaction to happen. Big Bang people will then go on to say that it still observably did happen, or invoke a multiverse as a possible explanation, and so on. For example they will say that regardless of whether we fully understand the big bang yet or not, there is still a redshift to all galaxies we can see in the observable universe, meaning other galaxies are moving away from us, and from there they go for the conclusion that if you go far enough back it was all in one place. Redshift could potentially be consistent with one theory of an eternal universe, where the expansion has always been happening. I suppose I'll list the other main lines of evidence here and make my best attempt to make them fit a non Big Bang theory of the universe.

Beyond redshift you have the problem of cosmic background radiation. If it is coming from every direction then you either explain this as something caused by the big bang or you explain it as a continuous process going on in the universe, not from a big bang. I am no astronomer but this should be possible to test and prove which theory is more valid. For example, if the big bang is true, we should be seeing that 'few degrees above zero' heat degrade slowly over time due to entropy, and measure the difference, while if the universe is eternal we would probably be seeing that temperature constantly remain the same. Either way, it does seem like something that at the least isn't conceptually impossible to explain in an eternal, constantly expanding universe.

Supposedly there is also a problem where the chemical makeup of stars matches what would happen if the big bang is true. I don't understand that enough to make an argument since the article is too vague to explain it.

Finally, going back to what I said earlier, I appreciate that the admins are responding and I am not trying to say you aren't, i was just upset at the other guy who said it was rude to even expect that. I basically just wanted to know if anyone agreed with my objection to it where if the big bang theory made sense the universe would be infinitely bigger than it is now. It seems that this is the Cosmological Constant error all the scientists brush over.

If you had of answered the statements I made here, all your questions would have been answered. Think about that.

HP Mageson666 wrote:When Ford runs off Einstein for being a fraud, what grounds do you think this was done on. Why did entire physicist panels condemn Einstein, why is the Big Bang forced on the science community? Because it was never accepted. Why was it condemned and never excepted by expert physicists. The Jews state its because of anti-Semitism, do you believe this nonsense explanation.

HP Mageson666 wrote:If you had of answered the statements I made here, all your questions would have been answered. Think about that.

HP Mageson666 wrote:When Ford runs off Einstein for being a fraud, what grounds do you think this was done on. Why did entire physicist panels condemn Einstein, why is the Big Bang forced on the science community? Because it was never accepted. Why was it condemned and never excepted by expert physicists. The Jews state its because of anti-Semitism, do you believe this nonsense explanation.

ConsistentMeditator wrote:…..

I did answer those and said I agree that this probably proves the theory is a hoax. I will try to look up on the internet the issue of physicist panels and ford condemning Einstein to see what reasons they use, if that is what you are implying.

So basically you have zero interest in proving any of your argument right. Very well, continue on with your baseless opinion, it was of no importance to anyone and only displayed your stupidity. I have no more interest in arguing with you now that you have fully shown how low level your thinking is.

ConsistentMeditator wrote:So basically you have zero interest in proving any of your argument right. Very well, continue on with your baseless opinion, it was of no importance to anyone and only displayed your stupidity. I have no more interest in arguing with you now that you have fully shown how low level your thinking is.

All you want to do is play your little argument game with everyone, but then you get all bothered that nobody wants to play with you. You're right that I have zero interest in you. All you want to do is act all self-important and superior to everyone else by beating them in some kind of argument, except there is no argument so you're basically just yelling at a wall. And that's why I'm laughing at you; because it's just ridiculous.

ConsistentMeditator wrote:you should be thanking me for posting that reason, which you seem to agree with and find valid. But instead, you are giving me shit for illustrating something you wouldn't have thought of to that level at all. Probably because you would never question anything along those lines. Instead, you just 'think for yourself', and all your conclusions remain in your own mind, never changing regardless of how wrong they might be.

This is a good example of what I meant.

#1, I already knew of and understood the whole thing about the Cosmological Constant long before you ever mentioned it. You're acting like I never would have thought of something that I already knew about, when you didn't even think of it either because all you did is basically just copied and pasted a wikipedia page. I do think it's a valid point and I do thank you for writing it down so I didn't have to. But I don't know what gives you reason to think you're somehow better than anyone else. You're acting like you've come to some kind of mind blowing conclusion that has never been thought of before, when you haven't actually even done anything. You're acting like you've been on a long and dangerous journey questioning things that have never been questioned by anybody else before, when all you did is just read a couple wikipedia pages. So please excuse me if all your false grandeur just looks ridiculous and childish to me but I really can't help it.

#2, I do question things, think for myself, and come to my own conclusions every day. Often these conclusions don't just stay in my mind, especially when they are important. I share them here to teach and help people. This is why I have almost 2,000 comments here now and nearly every single one of them is purely educational and helpful. I actually have come to many different big and new conclusions that have helped literally thousands of different people. I've directly helped to solve the problems of thousands of people. When what do you do? You copy a few articles then desperately beg people to argue against you? Sad

I think I got you pretty well figured out. You love to debate people to show off your own intelligence. You love to beat everybody else down with your superior logic and be the big winner. I bet you're always getting into "roasts" at school to show off how much more quick thinking and creative you are than the other kids. I was the exact same way so I get it. After a while it almost gets to be like a drug, that big dopamine rush to you're ego when the other people can't think of anything to say back to you and you're the one to get everyone laughing.

Except nobody is arguing with you here. Because you try to frame it like you have a question you want other perspectives on, but we can all see that you don't really want to have an educational discussion you only want to argue. To the point that when the topics you try to base your arguements on reach their conclusion and there isn't really much else to say about it, you keep desperately trying to keep your argument going. But it's just ridiculous. You try to hide your arguments behind questions as a weak excuse just to argue, so when your questions are all fully answered and there's nothing left to say you still aren't satisfied because the questions were never what mattered to you anyway.

I guess next time pick a more open ended question where there are more possible strong perspectives to argue behind. So it won't end so fast. Or join a debate club at school, or a group of guys at school where you all just try to roast each other. Some more satisfying outlet for your arguing hobby since that's all you really care about anyway. Because you kind of look like a boxer all alone in the ring and everyone around is just ignoring. This is why I was laughing at you

sunrise wrote:I read recently sacred geometry and the creation of the universe by m Pinkham. has some very interesting perspectives about a lot of topicshe begins with the spiral of serpent sheesha who creates the universe by uncoiling itself; Initially, the 2 spirals released become Brahma the creator of the universe and explains the process from a 'geometrical' perspective...It's a nice read anyhow, I enjoy it, personally

Metratron cube is a synthesis of all sacred geometrical shapes, I THINK From HERE THEY HAVE THE ALL IN 1 PRINCIPLE OR WHATEVER.

Long story short, I don't know to what extent it's perverted because it is, regardless definitely a nice read.

Be careful as many of these teachings are poisoned with dangerous disinformation, made to confuse.

Might I refer you all to the Game of Life. Think of all the dots you place as the basal energy of the universe. Now place as many dots all together, bunch them up, separate them, just randomly fill in spaces, experiment a little.

Now when you click 'start', let's say this is enabling the passage of so-called 'time', you'll notice that a lot of this energy will mix and mingle and even disintegrate, but out of what would seem like pure randomness, some things will actually form permanently and stick around. Picture these staples of energy as formations of physical existence like planets, life and us.

Energy is everywhere and it is always moving, eventually that energy will create something and I think that's a decent way of describing how the universe functions.

ConsistentMeditator wrote:So basically you have zero interest in proving any of your argument right. Very well, continue on with your baseless opinion, it was of no importance to anyone and only displayed your stupidity. I have no more interest in arguing with you now that you have fully shown how low level your thinking is.

All you want to do is play your little argument game with everyone, but then you get all bothered that nobody wants to play with you. You're right that I have zero interest in you. All you want to do is act all self-important and superior to everyone else by beating them in some kind of argument, except there is no argument so you're basically just yelling at a wall. And that's why I'm laughing at you; because it's just ridiculous.

ConsistentMeditator wrote:you should be thanking me for posting that reason, which you seem to agree with and find valid. But instead, you are giving me shit for illustrating something you wouldn't have thought of to that level at all. Probably because you would never question anything along those lines. Instead, you just 'think for yourself', and all your conclusions remain in your own mind, never changing regardless of how wrong they might be.

This is a good example of what I meant.

OK, yes, I went too far in assumptions about you. Meanwhile, when I ask Mageson if he agrees with the Cosmological Constant point I mention, you think this is asking for 'handholding' when I have zero ways to know that anyone here actually agrees on this point. All the articles I have seen on the site say nothing of the sort about it. You're the first person I've seen here that mentions this.

#1, I already knew of and understood the whole thing about the Cosmological Constant long before you ever mentioned it. You're acting like I never would have thought of something that I already knew about, when you didn't even think of it either because all you did is basically just copied and pasted a wikipedia page. I do think it's a valid point and I do thank you for writing it down so I didn't have to. But I don't know what gives you reason to think you're somehow better than anyone else. You're acting like you've come to some kind of mind blowing conclusion that has never been thought of before, when you haven't actually even done anything. You're acting like you've been on a long and dangerous journey questioning things that have never been questioned by anybody else before, when all you did is just read a couple wikipedia pages. So please excuse me if all your false grandeur just looks ridiculous and childish to me but I really can't help it.

No, it is not some conclusion that nobody has figured out before. Never said it was. I didn't learn it by copying it from Wikipedia just now, and yes, I wasn't the first to come up with this. Although those people writing the Wikipedia article clearly don't understand the implications of what they wrote. But the fact that nobody mentions it gives me no reason to assume everyone must inevitably know this point of argument. Sure, I was wrong to assume you didn't know, but you could say the same about this situation where you insult me for even asking Mageson for confirmation if he agrees on a point.

[quote=Ol argedco lucifas]#2, I do question things, think for myself, and come to my own conclusions every day. Often these conclusions don't just stay in my mind, especially when they are important. I share them here to teach and help people. This is why I have almost 2,000 comments here now and nearly every single one of them is purely educational and helpful. I actually have come to many different big and new conclusions that have helped literally thousands of different people. I've directly helped to solve the problems of thousands of people. When what do you do? You copy a few articles then desperately beg people to argue against you? Sad

I think I got you pretty well figured out. You love to debate people to show off your own intelligence. You love to beat everybody else down with your superior logic and be the big winner. I bet you're always getting into "roasts" at school to show off how much more quick thinking and creative you are than the other kids. I was the exact same way so I get it. After a while it almost gets to be like a drug, that big dopamine rush to you're ego when the other people can't think of anything to say back to you and you're the one to get everyone laughing.

Except nobody is arguing with you here. Because you try to frame it like you have a question you want other perspectives on, but we can all see that you don't really want to have an educational discussion you only want to argue. To the point that when the topics you try to base your arguements on reach their conclusion and there isn't really much else to say about it, you keep desperately trying to keep your argument going. But it's just ridiculous. You try to hide your arguments behind questions as a weak excuse just to argue, so when your questions are all fully answered and there's nothing left to say you still aren't satisfied because the questions were never what mattered to you anyway.

I guess next time pick a more open ended question where there are more possible strong perspectives to argue behind. So it won't end so fast. Or join a debate club at school, or a group of guys at school where you all just try to roast each other. Some more satisfying outlet for your arguing hobby since that's all you really care about anyway. Because you kind of look like a boxer all alone in the ring and everyone around is just ignoring. This is why I was laughing at you[/quote]

It isn't hiding arguments behind questions. I really genuinely wanted to know if anyone also agreed with me on that Cosmological Constant reason or knew about it. I suppose I'll just assume for now that Mageson already understood what I said about the cosmological constant and didn't feel a need to directly say this in response to me. The only reason I became hostile was because I got offended when you insulted me for asking a simple question. Basically the result is that if this kind of information was directly said in the opening post, the thread would be significantly better and probably wake up more people to the full details of exactly how the big bang theory is a hoax. Then you'd have both the fact that several trusted people have dismissed the theory and the fact that it is logically incoherent in the same place. I apologize for insulting you, but given that you started it in the first place, it shouldn't be so impossible to understand.

Ghost in the Machine wrote:Might I refer you all to the Game of Life. Think of all the dots you place as the basal energy of the universe. Now place as many dots all together, bunch them up, separate them, just randomly fill in spaces, experiment a little.

Now when you click 'start', let's say this is enabling the passage of so-called 'time', you'll notice that a lot of this energy will mix and mingle and even disintegrate, but out of what would seem like pure randomness, some things will actually form permanently and stick around. Picture these staples of energy as formations of physical existence like planets, life and us.

Energy is everywhere and it is always moving, eventually that energy will create something and I think that's a decent way of describing how the universe functions.

I have had a very quick go on that and this looks to be sort of what I meant regarding the patterns of energy, with vibrations, creating matter, and then with the addition of matter + energy/vibration, it creates other things, with higher or lower frequencies, etc., ad infinitum, ta-daa!

Energy is everywhere and it is always moving, eventually that energy will create something and I think that's a decent way of describing how the universe functions.

I think it's excellent. Some people need to see and do things, rather than just hear/be told things, so I think this is a very simple but effective way to explain it. For others who like sci fi (Sorry!), watch some sci fi regarding time distortions, namely Stargate, where the replicators wreak havoc and Spoiler Alert! some are placed inside a time-sphere type thing, which is very much slower than time outside of it. In a sense, this is similar. Say if Sol blew-up, the effects would be over X amount of distance, but in the vastness of the Universe, it wouldn't be very much - but for us on this scale, it would be...extremely bad, obviously. If the Milky Way was destroyed, then the same but on a different scale...etc. - and each of these incidents affects energy and matter in and around them to a certain amount and distance.

Similarly, I reckon that Black Holes are, if they exist, just that because Sun explodes and creates Nebula and heavier Elements, then Star is born, lives, and dies, then creates Nebula and heavier Elements... that it's just a big ball of extremely dense, heavy-heavy elements that is so 'heavy' and 'gravity-y' that "not even light can escape", seeing as light does have a finite speed. Perhaps Black Holes are a real or metaphorical Physical type of Astral existence - we can (if possible) mine these balls of elements and create all sorts of things - and of course increase the Periodic Table a very great amount. Perhaps!

What's the deal with the multiverse theory? Does it hold any water, so to speak? Personally, I think it's hogwash. I think there's only one universe but with infinite overlapping layers we refer to as dimensions

ZmajEriksson wrote:What's the deal with the multiverse theory? Does it hold any water, so to speak? Personally, I think it's hogwash. I think there's only one universe but with infinite overlapping layers we refer to as dimensions

It's juw-juw distorted talk to twist the idea of the æther. In the æther, there's infinity different possibilities of what it could become and manifest as. But goys can't know about that, so they just say "there's infinity different universes! Accept your life how it is, because there's a universe somewhere where you aren't a worthless goyim slave (but that's not this one! Hahaha)"